[Closed] Long, Low, Slack

Function innit. 'Gravity' and 'enduro' are there fashion and long, low, and slack is the right tool for the job. I wouldn't want to be hitting rock garden or taking a jump on something that was tall, high and steep.

Edit/ meant short, high and steep

Long, Low, Slack

Were a '90's Kingston dancehall act that never made it big outside of Jamaica?

Why don't you go race this down Llangollen then come back and tell us?
[img] [/img]

Thanks but I have no desire to ride at Llangollen thanks 🙂

Also known as, techy climb, clip pedal, on me arse again.

Function, [u]and[/u] fashion.

The function bit: as above, long low and slack is great when the trail is steep, fast and gnarly.

The fashion bit: most people don't ride trails steep, fast, or gnarly enough to warrant geometry that's a pain in the neck when we're just bimbling along...

At least, that's my take on it.

Having recently purchased the longest and slackest, though not the lowest, bike I've ever owned I certainly wouldn't trade back again for any of the bikes I've owned. Even though it's a 29er hardtail with 120mm of travel and relatively conservative geometry by some standards, I know that I'm the limiting factor, not the bike. A better rider could hit most things short of Rampage stuff on it. Modern geometry is significantly more confidence inspiring than the old, steep angled, arse in the air, nose over the front axle stuff I grew up riding.

Modern geometry is significantly more confidence inspiring than the old, steep angled, arse in the air, nose over the front axle stuff I grew up riding.

Whilst I agree entirely, the reverse problem is that to derive much enjoyment from said modern geometry bikes, you pretty much have to be hitting the bigger/steeper/harder terrain all the time as they invariably make "bimbling about in the woods" much less of an experience than an old school 71/73 angled 100mm stem bike will do.

Function, and fashion.

Again couldn't agree more.

There's riders out there that have been screaming for longer/lower/slacker for ages cos their riding has always warranted it. There's some of us that have embraced these bikes that have allowed us to push our own boundaries more than we thought possible. And then again there's also the trail centre car park warriors that always have to have the latest and greatest kit no matter what, just for a quick spin of the blue/red route.

But that's no different than it ever has been! Mountain Biking has always been part function, part fashion led...

invariably make "bimbling about in the woods" much less of an experience than an old school 71/73 angled 100mm stem bike will do

Which sadly, for bimblers like me it means finding bikes that suit harder.

Anyway, that's my moan out of the way.

As you were... 😆

Yes, no, maybe...

Still to this day the best bike I've ridden is a Saracen Ariel from when the brand relaunched in 2012.
It had 140mm of travel front and back but Saracen were willing to warranty them even with 160mm forks fitted, Ride.io website rated it best with a 150mm fork and described the bike as a mini-DH bike.
I used mine on local single track and uplift days at FoD, I got my best ever race result on it too, it would be considered short and with a high BB by 2017 standards and the 68 degree HA is laughable compared to the 62 and 63 degrees angles being written about in the Geometron thread, it was also built like a tank and heavy but there is more to a bike than an individual measurement, they are the sum of the parts...maybe it was the suspension kinematics?, maybe it was the frame itself?, who knows?...all I know is that in the intervening years I've had 4 hardtails all with the same or longer forks and slacker HAs, I've also had a full on DH sled and a current trail/enduro bike with 160mm of travel and a 66 degree HA....and I was quicker at the FoD on the 2012 bike!?!?

Sadly it was stolen, the home insurance paid out but by then they'd switched to a carbon swingarm and there were horror stories of cracking frames and seizing bushings...problems the mk1 bikes never had.
I'd give my eye teeth to have that bike back.

When WC downhill racers chasing ultimate speed and riding places like Val di Sole are using 62-64 HAs its almost funny to peel back the marketing BS and wonder why we're being told we need the same (or even more extreme, read the Geometron thread!) to pedal around trail centres!

A LOT of the mountain bike industry is hype, marketing and BS and most people ARE over biked despite what they think.

Don't know about particularly low and long, but knocking off a degree or two on my old heckler transformed it.

That said, not sure I'd want to go much slacker than about 66 on a trail bike. Fitted some off set bushes to my trance, and the front end is vague when climbing

On a downhill orientated bike, slacker the better. I took my dh rig with 63 ha to the alps having not been on a mtb in about a year, and i was so much more confident than on my enduro 2 years before, despite having ridden far more beforehand.

Sure it has slightly more travel, but it was just so much better on the really steep stuff.

I own a geometron. They work. Shit for bimbleing tbh, when you start going fast, they work.

It's both a real thing, and a journo thing- quite often they say long, low, slack about things that aren't any of those. (I found an old MBR where they tested an old BMC and declared it enormous and cumbersome, it was a large with a wheelbase of about 1100mm, these days the same journo would call that cramped and unstable.

tpbiker - Member

That said, not sure I'd want to go much slacker than about 66 on a trail bike. Fitted some off set bushes to my trance, and the front end is vague when climbing

That's a big mix of different characteristics though- you can have slacker bikes that climb like goats, original Ragleys are a good example- and offset bushings slacken the seat tube as well as the head.

My hemlock climbed like a bag of shit after I slackened it but that's because it wasn't designed for it

you can have slacker bikes that climb like goats

Slacker & longer requires steeper seat angle, short stem, wide bars, it's a package....

It works for me, my old old bike i recently built up feels cramped & twitchy as ****, not even a great climber tbh,I was a sucker for the whole 'flickable' thing that I bought into in the late 90s, so what do I know !

Lookingbback over my MTB past I first got into mountain biking in the early '90's and the Peak District was my back garden and I used to hit it every weekend on my fully rigid, v-braked, toe clipped 26" Giant Escaper. It was very interesting with a lot of walking and avoiding features. I then had a lay off for 15 to 20 yrs or so and came back into modern mountain biking on a long travel 29er full suss bike with disc brakes and all the advancements that modern bikes have, including longer, lower and slacker geometry. Well the difference is night and day and the stuff I'm riding now, and not just bumbling over, but hitting fast, I would have thought was impossible to negotiate on a bike back in the early '90's. And I'm no Brandon Semunek. The new tech and new geo definately not a fashion fad. It really does work.

Turns out I can be almost exactly as mediocre on a short steep tall bike as on long low slack bike most of the time. However, high speed stuff the modern bike wins all day long. Also you can get away with some very lazy riding that would have you out the front door on an older bike.

Which sadly, for bimblers like me it means finding bikes that suit harder.

I find that hard to believe. The amount of different bikes available nowadays is fantastic. Something in every flavour. The long, low and slack stuff dominates the Enduro/gnarpoon end of the market but there's no issue in finding trail orientated bikes that are more suited for normal riding

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/longer-lower-slackerhave-manufacturers-been-taking-the-pee-pee-a-bit

That time again

BoardinBob - Member

I find that hard to believe. The amount of different bikes available nowadays is fantastic. Something in every flavour. The long, low and slack stuff dominates the Enduro/gnarpoon end of the market but there's no issue in finding trail orientated bikes that are more suited for normal riding

Also, fatbikes make magnificent bimblers, I'd expect a plus hardtail to do the same.

Also, fatbikes make magnificent bimblers, I'd expect a plus hardtail to do the same

Aye I'm sure all the long low slack stuff dominates the magazines and internet articles but there's loads of good stuff out there that doesn't get the exposure

@boardinbob
I was talking about the type of geometry I had quoted.

Even in the world of fat bikes that has changed.

However my Pugsley delivers for me.

@boardinbob
I was talking about the type of geometry I had quoted.

Even in the world of fat bikes that has changed.

I've got both so it just depends on what I'm doing.

The old school geo bike just makes the basic stuff more interesting for me.

Just IMHO.

Took my 2001 Cove stiffee 26" 26lb hard tail on last week's mtb club ride, took my 2017 full suss 29" 32lb orange segment this week.

The Cove was slack (70degree head angle) in its day. I catch my knees on the handle bar if I try as thats how long the top tube is.

We rode almost the same trails. I was faster up and down on the Orange but had to pay much more attention on the Cove.

They were both fun in different ways buti rode stuff on the segment I refused on the Cove.

Tonight I will be riding the same trails on the segment, so that tells it's own story

Normal Man - Member

The old school geo bike just makes the basic stuff more interesting for me.

Slightly OT but, I always find this really interesting- the reason I usually have a fatbike or a rigid bike or some other stupid thing is because sometimes, I want a less good bike. But riding my good bike if it's got something wrong- like, just now it has a rigid post in, no dropper- is never satisfying at all, it just feels broken. I wonder what it is that makes bad qualify as good sometimes but not others.

(fatbike's proven to be my best option for shittily brilliant so far, it lacks the sheer unpleasantness of a rigid xc bike but has most of the "benefit" but I can't really rationalise it)

+1 for many natural trails I prefer a "basic" bike keeps them more interesting.

My modern ish 100mm XC bike isn't far off the 71 HA and you can certainly make things interesting on it, in fact plenty of XC HT's would fit the bill

For more all around riding - I prefer a slightly higher BB than a lot of modern FS bikes have. It's why a ride a hardtail on my more off-piste rides - less change of BB height is very handy on slow speed and uneven surfaces.

I'm fairly confused about all this now. I know I like low but everything nowadays is low, everything in from 1970something to 1990something was low and we only had about a decade of BB height silliness, caused by the rise of full suspension and the freeride movement. Somewhere around 300mm sagged is great, a little higher helps with techy climbs, a little lower viable with gravity on your side or smooth trails.

But long, I seem to have settled around the 440mm reach area, which isn't that long at 5'10 odd. Not short though!

And slack - well, I'm most confused there. With various anglesets, different fork lengths and moveable dropouts I've tried 10 different configurations between my full-sus and hardtail, with sagged head angles ranging from under 64 degrees to about 67 deg. The full-sus rides best at its slackest, the hardtail at its steepest!

From running Nicolai UK I've pretty much ridden the same bike (Helius CC/AC) since 2004 in each of it's iterations as it's has followed geometry trends. The earliest were short even and high even by the standards of the day.

Back in 2004 the XL had a 602mm top tube and a 70 degree head angle on a 125mm fork and a BB height 10mm over axles.
The 2015 model has 645mm top tube, 66.5 degree head angle on a 140mm fork a -15 BB (but its on 27.5 wheels so the axles are 12.5mm higher.).
The seat angle is basically the same - Nicolai were well ahead of the pack on steep seat angles (one of the reasons they have always climbed so well). The AC is a burlier bike than the original CC but still the closest equivalent.

I had a Geometron for a few months for the full 'how long low and slack can you go' experience but didn't work for me. Most of the changes are great - the extra length means it fits much better and can move around more. The slacker HA definitely works better descending and seems to be at about the limit before steering flop starts to become an issue and the bike becomes a handful for slow speed tech (up or down - one of the things I really didn't like about the Geometron).

The low BB is the compromise I'm never completely sure about. Pedal strikes are more of an issue and it's led to a few offs, stalls and bottom outs on ruts and rocky climbs that a higher bb might have avoided.

I think the thing with low bb is that it's really obvious when it's causing you problems but it's not as blatant when it's helping, so the compromise is more in your face than the benefit.

And, well, "best" is a really complicated concept, I'm riding for fun so subtle changes that I don't feel all the time probably aren't that important to me but something that really grates from time to time is.

The best thing about the "long, low & slack" thing is that it's helped a lot of people (me included) actually get an understanding of how bike geometry works and how different aspects affect a bike's handling.

Sometimes a proper long (at both ends) and slack bike will be just the ticket, other times a normal mainstream geometry bike can be more fun for hustling round trail centres or the local woods.

Now instead of having a long and a short travel FS bike I'm gonna have two bikes of the same travel & wheel size but contrasting geometry.

I own a geometron. They work. Shit for bimbleing tbh, when you start going fast, they work.

Love it. That Geometron daisy-chain thread needs more honesty like this.

eek. re-read before posting.

Most of the changes are great para refers to Helius. The Geometron had gone too far for me. Steering flop nasty, whole bike too big and unwieldy. Great at speed downhill on stuff that isn't too tight. Will climb up a stupid steep fireroad but I can get the Helius up steeper technical climbs because I can still move it around.

Is there a long and slack bike with a high B.B.?

I can't stand long bikes but have been riding low/slack bikes for a very long time.
Pretty much none of the current long/slack bikes are actually properly low Groundskeeperwilly.

Depends on what you consider high. On mid -travel current full-sus bikes I consider <335mm very low, 340 low, 345 normal, >350 high.

Run 5% less sag and you'll raise the BB by 8mm on a 6" bike. Put some 2.6" instead of 2.3 tyres on and you'll gain another 8mm.

Or stick 29" wheels in an 27.5 frame and you'll lift it by 19mm (as with the Geometron) if you have the clearance.

Pretty much none of the current long/slack bikes are actually properly low Groundskeeperwilly.

Numbers please.

Is there a long and slack bike with a high B.B.?

Hardtail wise, Stanton's have fairly tall BB's compared to their peers. Not the longest, but certainly pretty slack.

Numbers please.

My NS Eccentric CroMo 27.5 with 26" wheels was about 282 mm off the ground to the BB spindle centre IIRC. The lowest bike I've ever owned, great round pump tracks and smooth flow trails, but needed more careful pedalling elsewhere. For general riding it was very low but ridable IMO.

I'd say 290 mm with 170 mm cranks is as low as I'd dare go with a HT. FS I'd want at least 320 mm as a bare minimum. I'm talking mid travel here and as low as I'd dare, at the extreme ends you would have to add or subtract accordingly.

Which numbers do you require chief?

BB height please. Or BB drop. Thanks!

I think it's genuinely function. In the past 2 years I've jumped up the geometry ladder a bit. I owned a Santa Cruz Superlight for quite a long time and enjoyed it but was never really confident at speeds over techy stuff. My mate still road an Orange P7 that I bought in 93 and sold him. A quick ride on that after many years and I felt uncomfortable and unstable. So certainly something in the geometry changes over 18 years made a difference between those two bikes.

I sold the Superlight for a Cannondale Trigger 18 months ago and my riding improved significantly overnight. Maybe it was placebo but I don't think so. I felt much more confident, comfortable, and stable over the techy Singletrack. I started riding things I'd walked before.

This month I sold that for a Hightower. That bike seems to make rocks smaller and I feel much more stable at speed. I'm riding off small drops now, where before I took the chicken route. But I'm no less capable on the climbs, and arguably faster on the flat. It's even more capable on tight and techy too.

Just because it's longer and slacker than before doesn't mean it's going to make flats and climbs tough or bimbly. Unless you pick the wrong bike. Pretty sure a V10 wont work so well as a trail bike. Right tool for the job etc.

I'm not necessarily any faster on the Hightower than the Trigger, but I feel less on the edge, more in control.

315mm - Slack (62deg), not particularly long 170mm* travel full sus.

*Bonus numbers matter too 😉

That's incredibly low! What is it?

Medium bike
65.5 Degrees
BB is quoted as -12mm from the axles or 343mm from the ground
TT603/Reach 435

It's the longest bike I've owned, probably the slackest that I pedal up and no idea about the BB comparison.

It's fast, stable and a bit of a pain at lower speeds.

My 140mm bike with 160mm fork is:
425mm reach, 1183mm wheelbase
339mm BB height
63.7 deg head angle

150mm hardtail is:
436mm reach, 1165mm wheelbase
305mm BB height
65.4 deg head angle

Once sagged, compared to the full-sus the hardtail is longer of reach (but shorter of wheelbase), still lower BB height and much steeper head angle.

I only ride the full-sus in this slack/low setting when it's very steep, very greasy or uplifts. The rest of the time it's 6mm higher and 0.5 deg steeper - fewer pedal strikes on techy climbs, steeper seat angle helps pedalling and longer reach is nice. I've experimented with it a lot in the 3+ years I've owned it. Hardtail has had three different angle headsets and three lengths of forks. Both bikes have had two lengths of cranks.

it's not "incredibly low" chief.
it's higher than my DH bike. Like I said, been riding low bikes for a long time so am used to them.
other numbers:
420 reach
62deg HA
170mm cranks. and it's ridden everywhere. No drama.
1175mm wheelbase. like I also said. I don't like long bikes.
PM me if you're really need to know what it is.

My hardtails aren't much lower. too low a BB on a hardtail is detrimental to its playfulness. As is too long a fork. Personally, I'd never use longer than a 120mm travel fork on a hardtail. and even then I'd be running it super stiff.

it's not "incredibly low" chief.

Well, as a semi-pro geometry geek 😉 I can tell you that it's way lower than anything* that's currently on the market.

I've run 100, 130, 140, 150mm forks on hardtails (including 130/140/150 on the same Pike on the same bike). Inspired by BTR I tried going down the shorter travel route and running it much firmer but found I preferred how the bike handled with more travel and more sag up front, so a much plusher feel. Obviously that's a personal preference. I also found I liked the hardtail less slack, which surprised me because I prefer the full-sus slacker. Anglesets have been great for helping me find what I really like.

*If there's something that's that low, I'd like to hear of it!

Dude I was running a short 62 deg HA 100mm hardtail with a sub 12" BB 20 years back.

I don't really care what is current/fashionable*

😉

*I also dislike Big tyres, overly wide rims, low tyre pressures, and excess sag. (on the 170mm FS you're interested in I'm running 18-20% sag upfront. 25% rear)

This is back from 2014
[url= http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.imdserve.com/images/news/2014/05/14/1400066762079-sl3u7z9eojbm-630-80.jp g" target="_blank">http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.imdserve.com/images/news/2014/05/14/1400066762079-sl3u7z9eojbm-630-80.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Chris designed the frame with a super-slack 63 degree head angle.
Head angle: 63 degrees
Top tube length: 700mm
Stem length: 10mm
Wheelbase: 1,295mm
Chainstay length: 450mm
BB height: 330mm

is he still riding this kind of bike?

That is horrendous! ^^

is he still riding this kind of bike?

Awaits Chainline... 😉

gwurk - Member
Dude I was running a short 62 deg HA 100mm hardtail with a sub 12" BB 20 years back.

Was it custom? That's at least 7 degrees slacker than anything I can think of that you could buy off the shelf at the time.

not sure how low my bb is (i'll measure tonight) but the website states -9 based on 180mm fork. thing is i've put a 160mm fork on the front as the trails i rode dont need over biking! Anyway it feels low now so i'm running the rear shock with 20% so aas to keep it higher in its travel. didnt think about increasing the tyre volume... good tip!!

sorry that should be -6mm!

groundskeeperwilly - Member

Is there a long and slack bike with a high B.B.?

Currently riding an Aeris 120, which I believe is on the long and lowish end of things, though not particularly slack (67 HA).

The long bit I'm sold on, the bike feels great at speed and cornering and is better at riding switchbacks than my old short'n'steep bike but I'm still adjusting to the low BB. One local narrow singletrack favourite, which was always a bit of a pedal / derailleur risk with rocks submerged in the heather has become harder to ride without whacking the pedals every so often. I didn't think of using the shock lockout or pedal mode to try and reduce this, could help, but a few extra mm clearance would be handy sometimes.

Speeder - No. Production frame direct from Tiawanese factory. a Friday special (a second really). Just a lucky find. ropey angled frames were fairly common around the late 90s. this one just so happened to be ropey in all the right ways. I still have it. kinda.

have we done this yet?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

http://sickbicycleco.bigcartel.com/product/wulfbaron-frame-pinion-gearbox

Do any of their bikes actually exist or are they all one off builds with occasional CAD render?

Ive seen & touched one, not ridden it though

scottfitz off here has one

I do wonder if head/seat angles are the right thing for us to be measuring in some ways.

Reach maybe tells you more about the position the bike is going to place the rider in, and then you can relate that back to the axles throught chainstay and Wheelbase measurements should be useful in determining how weight balance fore/aft might work.

Measuirng angles isn't 'wrong' as such, but you need to maybe think about why you might want a slacker HA; mainly its in order to place the front wheel further forwards and improve support of the rider on steeper terrain, allowing better control in certain situations...

I kind of feel like everything should be laid out using the BB as a Datum, where are the axles and where are the bars and saddle all relative to the point where my feet are supported...

mainly its in order to place the front wheel further forwards and improve support of the rider on steeper terrain,

*sigh~*

no. it isn't.

it's for stability at speed.

Steeper HA bikes are absolutely fine for riding super steep trails at lower speeds so long as the bars aren't too low.

I had an interesting chat with the designer of the new Rallon. He was saying that if they had made that bike 4 years ago most people wouldn't have been able to ride it. The gradual-ish trend towards longer and slacker had given people time to adjust their techniques. It struck true with me as we see far less people hanging off the back than we did even a couple of years ago. Mostly people have an idea that they need to weight the front of the bike and lean it in. The average mountain biker rides way, way better than they did a few years ago and the bikes have evolved, or been able to evolve, to take advantage of that. Whether it's the bikers driving the design or the bikes driving the bikers I don't know but I think it's true. A sudden leap to long low and slack a few years ago would have been great for the riding gods and people from a DH background but 90% of the bikers would really have struggled I think.

He was saying that if they had made that bike 4 years ago most people wouldn't have been able to ride it...

The gradual-ish trend towards longer and slacker had given people time to adjust their techniques...

A sudden leap to long low and slack a few years ago would have been great for the riding gods and people from a DH background but 90% of the bikers would really have struggled I think.

this assumes that the riders you're talking about have regularly changed bikes during this evolution period but while some have, many haven't and I suspect it's overstating the degree of change as it translates into how rideable the bike is. For example as mentioned above I went from a 2004 bike to a 2017 bike in one step, I'm far from being an expert rider but it took only a couple of rides to get a feel for the changes. I'd be pretty confident that would be the case for all but the most handling-sensitive rider. It's really not that radical.

Yep - I had the same experience as joemmo. Not that radical. People who jump on a Goemetron from a standard bike don't seem to find it in the realms of 'not rideable' either.

Much more about what the market want to buy, rather than what they will ride like.

What the guy from Rallion said is pretty laughable Doug.
Every good all round bike rider I've ever met is able to swap between a short, steep playful hardtail and a long, low slack DH bike instantly.
Whereas most of the new breed of longer and slacker bandwaggon riders despite now riding more challenging trails still couldn't ride that little hardtail well to save themselves.

The average mountain biker rides way, way better than they did a few years ago

not riding off the back isn't necessarily an indication of how skilled a rider is. There are some absolutely incredible rear wheel bias riders out there. A super long bike isn't always going to be what a rider like that wants (or needs).

You seem to have forgotten all about choice here in favour of simply believing what is fashionable/marketted at us is correct. It's simply not that black and white.

mainly its in order to place the front wheel further forwards and improve support of the rider on steeper terrain,

*sigh~*

no. it isn't.

it's for stability at speed.

Steeper HA bikes are absolutely fine for riding super steep trails at lower speeds so long as the bars aren't too low.

Potato/potato... we might be talking at cross-purposes.

But yeah fine "Stability" if you like, weight distribution; whether pointed down a steep techy hill, or blatting on open tracks surely anything that changes how the mass of any vehicle is distributed relative to its axles is about helping to maintain its stability...

I take your point about HA not being the be all end all, I'm sure my old Mk1 trailstar probably had a relatively steep HA by modern standards, it also had a reasonably long TT (for the time), with a short stem and 2" rise bars so the riders mass, relative to the front axle could be kept back when necessary, and of course the rear end felt quite short Was it Stable? it seemed it at the time, maybe I was doing more work to keep it so, maybe I've got slightly rose tinted hindsight though... I don't recall it climbing well, but then that wasn't really it's main purpose.

I still think a front triangle that fits the rider (not the other way round) and placement of the front axle far enough in front of the CoG does help the bike on steep terrain...

Every good all round bike rider I've ever met is able to swap between a short, steep playful hardtail and a long, low slack DH bike instantly.
Whereas most of the new breed of longer and slacker bandwaggon riders despite now riding more challenging trails still couldn't ride that little hardtail well to save themselves.

That seems to imply that 'new' geometry is so effective that riders used to only that would find it hard to adapt backwards. I bet most of them wouldn't have much trouble.

But, geometry is one thing, suspension is another...

Stick 'em on that l'il hardtail.

No. I was simply implying contrary to Doug's post that buying a much longer, more stable bike doesn't suddenly make you a better rider.

GWurk??

Has to be.

I don't think that's what Doug was saying
BTW when did your ban expire GW?

I think it's quite touching that GW deigns to visit us proles annually and spare his precious time to bestow righteous condescension.

My current and my last hardtail have very similar head angles at sag (around 67 deg) and when it comes down to battering through rocks there's not all that much in it, especially considering the previous fork's inferiority and the smaller wheels. But when it comes to steep stuff, the vastly lower BB of the new bike plus the longer front centre makes a huge positive difference.

The full-sus is little better when it's steep but as soon as you add roughness or speed or both then the slacker head angle makes a big difference, almost as much as the rear suspension does. When the hardtail was new I'd done things with forks and anglesets to make the two bikes very close in riding geometry so it's been interesting to deliberately diverge them and feel the pros and cons.

Are you GW?? Hahaha! We've ridden together several times. I believe you destroyed me on one of your kids bikes once.... case in point.

Yes, I firmly believe that riders have got a LOT better. Why I don't know but I've seen it with my own two eyes. A hardtail isn't a measure of worth though, don't try that! I think that it's not just that riding the bikes has made the bike better, riding has changed and now more riders have better technique. I've seen it with my own two eyes day in and day out. More riders are ready for better bikes. I saw it during the launch for the Rallon for example, the more xc riders were asking about fork settings and tyres because they were struggling for front wheel grip. The better riders were putting more weight on the front wheel and had plenty of grip.

Could it be that these riders are getting better because people are riding more? My first full suspension bike was a Meta 55, about 1 1/2" shorter, 2.5deg steeper and 20mm less travel than my current Reign. Still think I was quicker on some trails on the Meta.

I rode my Marley hardtail around Llandegla on Sunday. It was my first time out in over 3 months and it's a great little bike. It's 10mm shorter, 1deg steeper and about 3 inches shorter in the wheelbase than the Reign.

Yes, this current geometry seems to inspire confidence, but isn't always faster IMO.

I'm sure that the DHer type riders are no better or worse than they used to be but I think the average MTBer nowadays is less of an XC rider and more likely to be riding steeper stuff and getting more air than they used to.

As a mediocre but enthusiastic rider, I found it very difficult to swap quickly between my short, tall, steep hardtail and my long, low, slack full-sus. I replaced the hardtail with a long, low, slack one and was much happier. The full-sus is now even slacker and the hardtail steeper but I can swap between them just fine, despite the head angles being about three degrees different. Maybe I'd have been fine on the old hardtail if was short, low and steep? The BB height did feel like the main issue once pointing properly downhill.